Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why Not Take Over Countries?.....

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jun, 2 2003 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Why don't countries occupy and take over countries when they win wars anymore? Like Iraq would be apart of the United States and so would Afghanistan. Now when the United States wins a war against someone, they just rebuild the country and leave, why not make the country your territory like they used to?




posted on Jun, 2 2003 @ 10:11 PM
link   
the goals of our government and the goals of their people are way too different.

in both iraq and afghanistan, the people were more or less oppressed, and would do anything to get out. even allying with us. there was a minority rebel group in both situations. they are going to most likely lead the new gov'ts. they hold the people, we don't. we got rid of their oppressors in order to defend ourselves. the culturl and moral and religious shock would be too great. they wouldn't like it either. they wanted liberty, not to be part of our union. most afghans would agree that mc donalds kabul won't be happenin anytime soon. just because the west liberates, don't mean we can assimilate them right like that. they'll fight against us.



posted on Jun, 2 2003 @ 10:27 PM
link   
The short answer to your question is that we do (at least in this case) take over an entire country. Hell, if you have ever been in Germany, it is essentially just a forward military base for the US in Europe. In Germany, we are gradually scaling back and allowing the germans to take possession of itself again, but for the last 50+ years, it has only been a giant US military base.

In Iraq, we fulfilled 2 main objectives (and neither had a thing to do with WMD)

A, we eliminated the most pressing economic threat, a government that was actively pressing OPEC to vote to change the oil standard currency to the euro.

B, We obtained a forward military base from which to launch similar operations into the heart of other OPEC nations, which still intend similar actions.

The "rebuilding" you mentioned is minimal, and only a public relations facade, essentially a bow to the PC crowd. If we did not live in the time of CNN/internet, where events witnessed by journalists would be transmit across the globe in a matter of minutes, I promise we would not have the slightest interest in rebuilding squat in Iraq.



posted on Jun, 2 2003 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Its rude.
And we subject our soldiers to the sexual diseases of the local whores.



posted on Jun, 2 2003 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Actually it is a western trend, to nation build not conquer.

Taking over nations disrupts banking agreements, every nation you take over destroys billions in debts.

WW1 showed that you have to be EXTREMELY careful in even exacting reperations from the losers, because that ended up hurting everyone more than it did helping anyone.

It's because the western world is ran by commerce and banking, so wars are fairly LARGE when they do happen, and they in the end never change borders.

The last war for conquest was basically Hitler stepping out of the rest of the banking world, trying to form their own way, which failed.

There can be only one it seems. One large banking net work.

As for 3rd world nations, they still do conquer eachother and such, look at China taking over Tibet in what...49?

Early 50s? Can't remember.

The nations still conquering eachother are outside the banking network.



posted on Jun, 2 2003 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Blunt. Direct and maybe a bit uncalled for, but true, and well....about the thread.



posted on Jun, 2 2003 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I have offered to lend the president my risk set but he doesnt seem to return my phone calls.
I'll even let him conquer kamchatka and alaska.
Just as long as he doesnt try to eat the game pieces.



posted on Jun, 2 2003 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Oh well thanks for not giving my actual REAL answer any notice Advisor.

No I guess you can just go believe it's really about the hookers...



posted on Jun, 3 2003 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Anyone who thinks that we are not taking over the countries we subjugate is blind. We have colonized the world in a mercantilistic tradition, having all of our vassal states produce our goods, and if they dont go our way... well, look what happened to Iraq. Afganistan- subjugated and now the site of an oil pipeline and soon to be several shoe factories. Iraq- Oil producer for America, with what Bush wants to be a puppet government. Even China, the big bad Communist state, America's scary enemy, is making 75% of our imports.

To say that we do not conquer countries just isnt thinking of all of the ways a country can be subjugated. Do you think a single country can go against US opinion and survive? We own the world and you are all oblivious to the fact. Thank goodness some are rejecting American authority, but that will be over soon


There are no "rogue" nations. In a second we could crush a rebellious country, we need not spend any effort. They are just distractions so the American public does not realize the noose of Homeland security being put around their neck.

XAOS



posted on Jun, 3 2003 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Yeah whatever xaos, I'm sure France thought the same way in 1938.

Your level of military knowledge is pretty....tiny.

I see what you are getting at but it's just not the case.

While you COULD look at our mercantilism as a form of "subjugating" in the end it still boils down to war, and hell even the rice munching twigs in vietnam beat us, even though we won every battle we engaged in.

So don't be so sure that we rule because we'll just kick the butt of anyone who stands in our way.



posted on Jun, 3 2003 @ 04:53 AM
link   
But in Vietnam we were also locked in a power struggle with the USSR. Now this is not the case. We really can take any enemy, which has lead to countries lacking any true sovereignity because the USA can just come in and change what they want.

XAOS



posted on Jun, 3 2003 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by 10DeadInside10
Why don't countries occupy and take over countries when they win wars anymore? Like Iraq would be apart of the United States and so would Afghanistan. Now when the United States wins a war against someone, they just rebuild the country and leave, why not make the country your territory like they used to?


Just look in your history books and you'll understand why countries don't do that anymore. I wonder why humans never learn from the past ?



posted on Jun, 3 2003 @ 02:22 PM
link   
the art of war.....

in todays era, national boundaries are set. some are disputed, but are officially recognized by everyone else. that why france and italy are still different countries despite being part of the european union.

when we ahh overthrow, a regime, we are at first liberating the people. that's why we're being very careful in choosing enemies. in the beginning, afghanistan was justifiable as a target, 9-11, and various other state sponsered terror being launched from there gave us a reason to liberate the living hell out of them. here's what you'll see in this situation.

a UN supported cause, ousting terror supporting regime, catching and or killing those responsible.

elimination of THAT, government, and establishment of a western styled democracy. first president, or PM will most likely be one of the ranking rebel soldiers during the war. ahmed karzai...

preservation of their way of life. we're following the mongol example of, "here, you can stay muslim, as long as you pay us to protect you from any other extremists" not a crusade style our way or the highway bub, method.

here's what you won't see.

swearing in the aforementioned nation as part of the US of A.

mc donalds all over the place, no americanization of the nation.

no forced christianity on other peoples, or any attempt at downplaying muslims because of their cruel leaders being that religion.

ok now waht we have in iraq and afghanistan is trick situation. we've got people free of oppression and for the first time in quite a while, getting on their feet to do things on their own. at first, they supported america cos of the liberation and all, but the nationalism is kickin in and they know if they jkust sit around they'll be puerto rico 2, or guam. just another western colony, so of course we got the nationalists saying thanks for dinner get the hell outta my house. i can agree. thing is though, if we're not careful about who we bring in next, we could get another saddam on our hands, or possibly even another jennifer love hewitt. hard times. we've got the support, or at least distant relative support, of both nations. neither are wanting to jump in as the 51st, but both are starting to realise, we can help their economy moreso then leaving them to their own, and bring them out of third world status. afghanistan is doing well, and if iraq had the right buttons pushed, the untapped oil mines could be just well incredible. there is much money to be made, and peace to be had, if people play their cards right.

but just hopping up and saying let's conquer mexico aint gonna work. the age of imperialism is finshed. or it's just beginnin.

we still have military presence in germany, my new home in 6 weeks, and japan, and italy, and any other place thathas previously tried to take over the world. as for civil wars, i think the countries fighting can figure it out on their own.





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join